- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194505
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWhether that is true, it does not address the question.
The reason you do not know Jesus is that you rely the Jehovah's
Witnesses Organization to tell you who He is. You should should
get rid of the New World Translation and get a good translation
like the New American Standard Bible and read and study it and
let the Holy Spirit teach you. The leadership of the Jehovah's
Witnesses do not know Jesus. You h ...[text shortened]... d
things from them because they have done a lot of research but
they just don't know Jesus.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194505
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by KingDavid403So where in that passage does it say that Jesus is God?
Isa 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor,[b] Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194505
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by KingDavid403Jesus, as opposed to God?
The fact is neither you or I, or anyone knows all the exact truths of God. But we all claim to know, and say we're the way, or our sect is the way to Him.
Jesus is the way. And that's all God is going to clarify for us on this earth right now. The rest is nothing but false pride. I'm a oneness believer but I go to a trinty church. And for me t ...[text shortened]... nd as I said before I really don't think it matters as long as you keep your eyes on Jesus.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by KunsooInformation on "being a God or being God himself.
I'm not talking about the authority conveyed as is the subject of the other thread. I'm referencing the doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all one entity. Is there anything in the Bible which is explicit on the subject?
Jehovah's Witnesses say no, as do a few other Christian sects. I've seen obscure references, but you would think that ...[text shortened]... esus is God, you cannot have grace.
Thoughts? Other passages I'm missing?
Was the Word “God” or “a god”?
THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—The Holy Bible—New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an&rdquo😉 leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.
The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”
The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.
[Diagram/Pictures on page 24]
(For fully formatted text, see publication)
JOHN 1:1. SAHIDIC COPTIC TEXT; P. CHESTER BEATTY-813; WITH INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION
In the beginning existed the Word
and the Word existed with
the God and a god was
the Word
[Credit Line]
Reproduced by Permission of the Chester Beatty Library
21 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75In the beginning existed the Word
Information on "being a God or being God himself.
Was the Word “God” or “a god”?
THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John ...[text shortened]... d was
the Word
[Credit Line]
Reproduced by Permission of the Chester Beatty Library
and the Word existed with
the God and a god was
the Word
beautiful, truly beautiful, sahidic coptic text is awesome.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by KingDavid403This says nothing about him be Almighty God. None of these titles are ever addressed to his Father Jehovah ( YHWH ).
And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, [b]Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
It's very clear to me.[/b]
Yes he is a Mighty God. But the title God is used in describing many beings such as Satan himself. Even some humans have been given the title of being a God.
And yes he is wonderful. Why shouldn't he be given that title?
And is he not a councelor too? But is that ability only given to AlmightyGod only? Of course not. It's something he does because of his postion as being King over the Kingdom as any King would do.
He is also called a Father but is that title only given to Almighty God only? Apparently not as the Catholics use it quite freely.
And he is called the Prince of Peace because of removing Satan out of heaven first and eventually will throw him in an abyss. But is not the title of Prince a title of a lower position then the Almighty King or Almighty God would be?
Almighty God is never referred to as a Prince.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by galveston75Well you go with those beliefs. That's fine with me. And I'll go with what God has showen me. If all fish in the oceans were the same fish it would be pretty boring. And It's clear God feels the same way since He made so many different fish.
This says nothing about him be Almighty God. None of these titles are ever addressed to his Father Jehovah ( YHWH ).
Yes he is a Mighty God. But the title God is used in describing many beings such as Satan himself. Even some humans have been given the title of being a God.
And yes he is wonderful. Why shouldn't he be given that title?
And is he n ...[text shortened]... n the Almighty King or Almighty God would be?
Almighty God is never referred to as a Prince.
We're both still following Jesus if what I read from your past posts is correct. That's all that really counts.
God Bless,
David
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by KingDavid403Yes I do but not all those fish will make it thru that narrow gate. Just make sure your in the right school of fish.
Well you go with those beliefs. That's fine with me. And I'll go with what God has showen me. If all fish in the oceans were the same fish it would be pretty boring. And It's clear God feels the same way since He made so many different fish.
We're both still following Jesus if what I read from your past posts is correct. That's all that really counts.
God Bless,
David
21 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999We haven't conversed much in my time here; in these few recent exchanges you have confirmed to me that we won't much in the future. I get more sense from the JW's.
Isaiah is prophet. Prophets prophesy. Isaiah is reporting what he knows will happen in the future. People will call Christ God. And thats exactly what happened in the future. Isaiah does not formulate doctrines for us to believe.
Therein lies the danger in getting your doctrine from anywhere but the mouth of Christ and the apostles.
Nowhere have I sai ...[text shortened]... learly. Christ never claimed to be God but always called God his Father, and He was sent by God.
Regards.
Edit: No (real) offence intended JWs